> On May 25, 2015, 11:05 p.m., Joris Van Remoortere wrote: > > This is an interesting case. We have a proxy to another function, rather > > than the implementation of that function as a lambda. > > I'm curious what the community's view is on using the proxy lambda approach > > as per your patch, versus a `std::bind`. I think the lambda is more > > readable, the bind is more explicit about what is going on :-) > > Depending on the way the community votes, I would add a comment here just > > stating that this is a proxy lambda. What do you think? > > haosdent huang wrote: > I think it would be better to discard this patch. And I think it would > better to convert some lambda::bind which don't have complex params. For most > lambda::bind in current code, their parameters could not copy safety. So use > lambda::bind and keep current code maybe better. But for some lambda::bind, > if it's paramters are basic types and change it could import readbility, I > think it would be better to convert them. > > Joris Van Remoortere wrote: > I discussed this earlier today with BenH and some others. We think your > strategy is a good one. Let's keep this patch, and just update it with the > outstanding issues. Just add a comment stating this is a proxy lambda? > > haosdent huang wrote: > Sorry for no reply for a long time because of busy at my current work. I > still prefer to discard this one if change it here could bring some problems. > And I would change some other lambdas::bind which don't have so much affects > (eg. don't contains params).
Hi, @jvanremoortere . I update the patch, could you review it again? Thank you very much. - haosdent ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34645/#review85137 ----------------------------------------------------------- On June 1, 2015, 5:26 p.m., haosdent huang wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/34645/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated June 1, 2015, 5:26 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Joris Van Remoortere. > > > Bugs: MESOS-2670 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2670 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Update existing lambdas to meet style guide > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/master/master.cpp 710b8149c9d855d0f47cb2952366be10bc78c74d > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34645/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > haosdent huang > >